I can see a lot of folks who were waiting for FX simply go ahead and get their 2500k or 2600k CPU and board in the last few days.

A difficult call for the true fanboys; if you buy one of the 8 cores at current pricing I think you can ‘proudly‘ stand up and declare yourself one of their rank.

AMD should start a marketing campaign where you can get a voucher for a free AMD tattoo if you buy at current pricing. There’s a stipulation that the tattoo needs to be inked onto your arse which seems appropriate as they are kicking you in that area anyway so a bit more posterior pain won’t be noticed too much.

[General 1]Reviews are pouring in from all over the internet.The usual sites put up huge reviews almost the moment the NDA was lifted.The consensus on Bulldozer has been very clear and decisive.Your next CPU purchase should be clear.

[Hitler]Hell yeah. This is why I bought an AM3+ board. Bulldozer and 990FX, baby.

[General 1]My Fuehrer.Um…

[General 2]Bulldozer’s performance is shit. Per core performance is lower than Phenom II.Power consumption is off the charts.

(Long pause)

[Hitler]Everyone who bought a Sandy Bridge needs to get the fuck out.

(Room almost completely empties)

[Hitler]Are you fucking shitting me?It’s that fucking bad?What the fuck has AMD even been doing these past few years?Jacking off to hentai and my Little Pony?This is their flagship CPU!I could shit a better CPU.2 billion transistors and this is what we get?What was the fucking point?

[General 1]But sir, it can match an i7 in a few tests!

[Hitler]Sure, in two out of a hundred benches.The i7 fucks it in the other 98.

[General 1]But later versions could get better!

[Hitler]Oh bullshit. Just admit that AMD fucked up.This is embarrassing.What the hell happened?They delayed it over and over, made so many promises, then pinched a loaf on our faces.It’s shit in games. It’s shit in anything that isn’t threaded to hell.And even then it barely beats an i5-2500k.What the hell happened to the days of AMD being on top?They used to be ahead of Intel! Now all they can do is add MOAR COARS!They’re not even true cores. It’s a bunch of half-cores mashed together.

(Hitler sits down)

What can I do now? Buying from Intel means giving money to Jews.And I’m supposed to pwn Jews!This is horseshit.The only way to get back at Intel now is to heat the Auschwitz ovens with Bulldozer.But coupling that with the Fermis we’re already using, the power bill would kill me.What’s an AMD fanboy to do? Why does AMD fucking hate us so much?This is worse than when my car was stolen and my Xbox Live account was banned.

(Outside the room a woman is visibly shaking)[Woman in corridor to shaken woman]You gonna cry, AMDfag?

[Hitler]There’s no reason for me to buy one. My 1100T is probably a better CPU than Bulldozer.I’m done.I can’t buy this.Looks like I’m getting Sandy Bridge after all.After holding out for so long too. This is what I get.Fuck you, AMD.

I don’t know why so many people on this thread have missed this point!

The true answer you already know - most people don't care....... and if they do, then they care about other things before power efficiency.

Count myself among those that don't care as much as you do, don't get me wrong - I AM a big fan of power efficiency and I AM a big fan of high performance, I AM also a big fan of silent/quiet computers, but I AM also a big fan of having cash in my wallet.

This is why I was looking at the quad-core Bulldozer rather than the 6, or 8 core models because at launch it was the cheapest model with the highest clock speeds - for me this was golden, I don't want loads of cores - I wouldn't know what to do with them.!

The FX-4100 should also have had almost exactly half of the power draw of the 8150 - I never bothered to check it out because it simply didn't live up to performance expectations - so I simply don't care, it also didn't live up to price/performance expectations. For me they are the major points, then comes power/heat, in due consideration all of these need to be weighed in with the competition - the competition wins - whether that is other AM3 CPU's or Intel CPU's, but the competition wins on every single point.

The Bulldozer CPU's as they stand cost to much, don't have enough single-threaded performance, don't have enough multi-threaded performance (in enough apps), and draw too much power. That is a Loose - Loose - Draw - Loose. AMD have lost with the Bulldozer, but they can turn it around, they must for all of our sakes - we don't just want, but NEED a strong competitor to Intel, at the very least to keep Intel honest - we all know that they wouldn't be without AMD.

Scrub the text in your post, people will not get the effect at all without watching the video - it is legendary this clip, and has been used many times, this Bulldozer one is as good as ever.

Just got the the "pwn Jews" bit - genius that they have managed to keep the evil Nazi agenda so heavily threaded (pardon the pun) in this hilarious video - BTW I really need to watch the original film having seen this clip so many times with non-original subtitles.

we don't just want, but NEED a strong competitor to Intel, at the very least to keep Intel honest - we all know that they wouldn't be without AMD.

Where did most of AMD's net income come from in the last 2 years? Intel.When's the last year AMD even had a net income before Intel pitched in? 2005.That's some competition! Intel must be very concerned about this strong competitor. That must be why Intel is addressing the needs of its customers and offering its products at the best possible price, yes.

I'm not fond at all on Bulldozer, but reading Phoronix and Anandtech I've just learnt (sorry for being there so late) that actually the FX-4100 isn't a quad core, it's a dual core (but with two integer unit more, and so it goes for the other CPUs, in order to compensate the lack of "Hyperthreading").

Does it change any how the equation (here the FX-4100 have a 10% premium over a true quad core like the Phenom II 955BE)?

I've liked AMD for a long time so it's not about being a fanboy or anything else. Poor is poor end of story.For the time being I can still use AMD for most of my builds (which are not high end machines but more value based ones 2/3 cores or the odd unlocked sempron for the super budget stuff)

Looking at the reviews and there are many, the power consumption seems somewhat better at idle, but many say worse at full load which isn't surprising considering the huge no. of transistors in each CPU die. Overclocked same situation if not worse v the 6 core Ph II models. But there is a variation between reviews a bit more than I would like both on performance and power consumption.

At this stage I'd be more interested to see more reviews of the slower clocked 8 core CPU (which at least is cheaper) and the 6 and 4 core ones. Personally I was looking to the 6 core FX myself for an update from the PhII 840. The 4 core seems to actually be worse than that processor in most respects even with the larger lv2 and lv3 cache. I just don't think they've designed these processors properly they had actually made big claims about power consumption...claims that don't seem to have come to reality.

AMD are doing ok OEM wise I see them around quite a bit on lower end laptops and desktops. This won't put them out of business, but they will have to make some huge improvements to the next batch of FX processors. Esp since Ivy bridge is not far away. I don't mind AMD making not as good as Intel CPU's but they have to be priced attractively to buyers. FX are not

the FX-4100 isn't a quad core, it's a dual core ... Does it change any how the equation (here the FX-4100 have a 10% premium over a true quad core like the Phenom II 955BE)?

However you count the amount of cores, the i3-2100 costs about the same as that Phenom quad. Both can execute 4 threads and performance is in the same ballpark... but power consumption isn't. So the Intel is the one to beat and the FX-4100 of course fails as far as SPCR is concerned. But for overclockers on a budget it might be more interesting (I don't know).

This however is very different from the wording that HFat used "pitched in", suggests rather strongly that Intel gave their arc-rival cash out of the goodness of their heart to keep AMD above water.

You may be right, but please don't forget that you came from Essex, HFat is swiss, I write from Italy. Moreover, we can have different ages. So three languages, three different way of thought. I can't speak for HFat, but I don't think in english, I have to translate my thoughts (and sometimes I have to preliminarily rely upon Google Translator!).

I say that as personally I haven't interpreted in that way those HFat words: I've read them as (summarizing) "since 2005 AMD has been unabled to squeeze some net income from its own business". For a ten billion company six years deep in the water is a straight path "verging to irrelevancy" (to quote MKM/Forbes). IMHO.

EDIT: Moreover that settlement involves a complex cross-licensing agreement, so it may also well be said that Intel is paying AMD since two years ago.

I do know that the graphics division of AMD (ATI) has been propping up AMD as a whole since shortly after the takeover (merger.!), but I did not realise just how bad AMD's finances were (are), and I still don't believe that spinning off their Fabs as a separate (although partially tied in) company was a good idea in the longer term, it looked like a quick way to get some money, and for what..... to develop a totally underwhelming CPU.!

Instead of selling their Fab's, AMD should have kept them and bought VIA, as much as anything else for their patents in low-end, low-power CPU's and R&D facilities, which would have helped them produce better low-power CPU's, and possibly a "Bulldozer" that doesn't suck balls. Additionally AMD would have gained some revenue from ITX (I assume that VIA actually make royalties from this.!).

GlobalFoundries is a joint venture with AMD and ATIC which aquired the Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing company based in Singapore.

Bottom line is that was not a bad move for AMD because the levels of investments required to keep a modern fab running and up to date is pretty high to say the least. The problem isn't the fabs or the spin off, it's the design of the new processors, and most importantly it's the pricing relative to the competition.

I don't know which teams were involved in the development of the FX CPU, but I believe the most obvious mistake was using a design for server processors (heavily multi threaded workload) and expecting it to work well for normal desktops (rather less heavily threaded by some margin). It was a bad call if ever there was one. Why they did that...you'll have to ask AMD I'm just an end user myself.

I don't know which teams were involved in the development of the FX CPU, but I believe the most obvious mistake was using a design for server processors (heavily multi threaded workload) and expecting it to work well for normal desktops (rather less heavily threaded by some margin). It was a bad call if ever there was one. Why they did that...you'll have to ask AMD I'm just an end user myself.

I imagine they either had to go with a shared platform as they couldn’t afford to develop two or it was just incompetence. It may a bit of both in that when the original bulldozer due on 45nm was cancelled maybe they were forced to make some major compromises.

AMD have been spreading their resources thinly I imagine what with Fusion adding a new line. Cash strapped companies struggle to expand R&D or product lines.If it wasn’t for Fusion I would say that AMD’s design teams should be sacked as they have brought so many poor products to market late since their heyday that it’s beyond the pale. There seems to have been a culture of failure in the mainstream desktop and laptop design teams for years now. Only Fusion is giving them credibility outside the server world without which they risk becoming a joke.Maybe peoples’ expectations are distorted by the relatively brief period in which AMD were on top; brief in the context of how long x86 has been around.

The last time AMD had the lead they fumbled badly so let’s hope they run with Fusion more successfully. Intel’s GPU has power efficiency issues as well as the more obvious driver issues but there is no place for complacency when up against Intel. Since they took a beating they have come back stronger than ever.

Fusion has potential longer term no question right now though I'm not so sure it's hugely appealing.Here's one obvious example of just how iffy the FX can be even with heavily threaded applications.I'm not one to do rendering on a PC but it's demanding and an obvious example of where more cores should improve performance.

Take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM_56Uur ... re=relatedAs you can see the 6 core FX isn't doing that well even overclocked to 5GHz at stock it's pretty unimpressive only barely faster than my 4 core 840! Yes the one with no lv 3 cache at all and a lot less lv2 cache. That shows just how ineffective the FX is performance per core is terrible (in some cases)

I've not seen the results for the 4 core FX floating around somewhere but for this kind of application it's going to be slower than the CPU I already have, yet it costs more. The 6 core isn't as fast as it should be either. If I want to update CPU from a quad core really the only logical choice is the 1090T PhII X6They could have strapped two more cores to a PhII x6 and they would have actually had better performance than the current so called top dog FX 8 core. And folks said the old stuff was knocking on a bit...maybe not!

I honestly hope it does bomb to get a message through to AMD, but I can see folks going for 8 cores even if they'r not that good.

the wording that HFat used "pitched in", suggests rather strongly that Intel gave their arc-rival cash out of the goodness of their heart to keep AMD above water.

It would only suggests that to someone who not only denies what I've written but insists on interpreting what I'm writing from their perspective. You're the one saying Intel is "honest".

To anyone looking at the numbers, it should be obvious Intel's margins are outrageous. Intel is swimming in billions by pretending to compete with AMD and shutting others out with exclusive agreements.

I'm not merely suggesting that Intel is keeping AMD above water. It should be obvious that's exactly what Intel is doing. If Intel simply sold its CPU at cost for a little while, AMD would be history.But Intel is of course not doing so out of any "goodness". AMD is part of Intel's strategy. Intel knows people have been brainwashed with this magical thinking about competition. So Intel keeps AMD alive to make people like you believe its practices are "honest" and to protect its margins from prying eyes.

It would only suggests that to someone who not only denies what I've written but insists on interpreting what I'm writing from their perspective.

I don't want to turn this into a petty cat-fight, but I must stress that I have not denied that Intel has paid AMD lots of money over the last couple of years, that much is an obvious manifestation of them bribing and coercing hundreds of PC Manufacturers NOT to sell AMD systems for several years - AMD deserved far more money than they got. As far as my perspective vs yours - lets not bother discussing that, its pointless.

Quote:

To anyone looking at the numbers, it should be obvious Intel's margins are outrageous. Intel is swimming in billions by pretending to compete with AMD

Which is why a strong competitor to Intel is in our (the consumers) interests, that is why I wanted to see the top of the line Bulldozer win every test over the 2600K by 10% and be cheaper as well, that would have been a supreme victory for us, we would then have much more choice, and Intel would be forced to drop the price of their CPU's to compete - who wins - we do.

Quote:

I'm not merely suggesting that Intel is keeping AMD above water. It should be obvious that's exactly what Intel is doing. If Intel simply sold its CPU at cost for a little while, AMD would be history.

Yes they would - for a while, although Intel's main priority is making money for its shareholders, so if Intel don't really have to compete with AMD on the performance front, they can concentrate on making lots of money - which is their goal.

If Intel destroyed AMD by dropping the price of their CPU's so that no-one bought AMD chips forcing them to go bust, and then increased the price of all of their CPU's due to a lack of competition Intel would ultimately be destroyed by the ensuing court case that would take so much cash (and possibly assets) from Intel and then simply hand them to AMD, AMD would actually end up benefiting from Intel's greed and (very illegal) anti-competitive behavior and would end up being a much larger thorn in Intel's side than it ever has been. Intel have been caught once, I hope they are not stupid enough to do it again - but they really dont have to do they, just look at their products vs AMD's, they simply dont need to do anything, they can just earn their shareholders lots of money.

Quote:

Intel knows people have been brainwashed with this magical thinking about competition. So Intel keeps AMD alive to make people like you believe its practices are "honest" and to protect its margins from prying eyes.

Interesting conspiracy theory, I am not even going to comment on this, I cant be bothered to do the typing.

I don't buy the Intel are keeping AMD afloat theory myself.If you remember what the law suit from AMD was a few years back.One major part was Dell and Intel offering them discounts on processors to "not buy" AMD processors. That was Intel actively trying to put AMD out of business.

Intel paid out to AMD because they couldn't have won the case it was actually a very valid law suit from AMD.

Intel screwed them no doubt but AMD’s management and design teams screwed their own company even more.

I don't doubt that at all.

You only have to look at the Bulldozer as it is now, and compare that with what a modified "Thuban" would be like on 32nm. The Phenom III x6 would kick the shit out of the Bulldozer. They could have added in the extra instructions, dropped the power draw, increased the clock speed, boosted the memory controller and tweaked the IPC - not to mention that the die size would have been much smaller, thus making them cheaper to manufacture and make more profit due to being able to get more CPU's per wafer AND having fewer duff CPU's.

Instead they pushed on with Bulldozer, and it is very underwhelming - AMD must know that they shouldn't have forced Bulldozer out now, its obviously only half-baked, instead we should be running with Phenom III x6 based on a highly modified "Thuban" core.

I blame all of that on the AMD management team and none of that on Intel.

Agree on the above the PhII series could have been tweaked to improve power consumption and peformance. They could have had a reduced cache version to mirror the current Athlon II line as well.

AMD seem dead set on these APU's though they're saying (so it seems) that that's their direction after AM3+ ends it's life in a few years. I'm not entirely convinced on that front because having a built in GPU might be useful to some, but for lower end machines esp business ones they really don't need them at all. Even fairly boring bog standard chipsets can handle flash, and HD video with modern processors. And those who do gaming will always want a seperate card for that.

That means higher TDP processors to cover the CPU and the GPU unless AMD can miracle something in manufacturing.

Ars Technica has a good article that highlights the strategy behind Bulldozer. Basically, they made some assumptions about how pervasive multi-threaded computing will be, and are betting the farm on Fusion, where certain tasks will be offloaded to the GPU. However, they might be 5-10 years premature.

I know your English is not very good but a conspiracy theory is a theory about a conspiracy, not a theory that ignores common assumptions. What would be the conspiracy here?One could excuse you because brainwashed native English speakers have been misusing the phrase for some time now but I think you can do better.

And for there to be market dynamics, you'd need a market. Specifically, you'd need several competing suppliers of the same product or of substitutes. For many buyers, there is no substitute to some of Intel's CPUs and therefore no market.In the same way that Atom solutions can only be substitutes of Intel's mainstream CPUs in some cases, AMD solutions must sometimes be ruled out regardless of pricing.

but a conspiracy theory is a theory about a conspiracy, not a theory that ignores common assumptions. What would be the conspiracy here?One could excuse you because brainwashed native English speakers have been misusing the phrase for some time now but I think you can do better.

Yes, I was referring to that last andyb joke (is this term right?): but it's just a reference to introduce that BSN comment.

However, on closer inspection this news is open to ambivalent interpretations: did Intel drugged the market with lower prices (as BSN would seem to think), or is Intel giving an hand to AMD in order to let it apparently compete (without any chance of)? Or whatever else? I feel that whichever could be the answer, it isn't likely a positive thing for us.

HFat wrote:

And for there to be market dynamics, you'd need a market. Specifically, you'd need several competing suppliers of the same product or of substitutes. For many buyers, there is no substitute to some of Intel's CPUs and therefore no market.In the same way that Atom solutions can only be substitutes of Intel's mainstream CPUs in some cases, AMD solutions must sometimes be ruled out regardless of pricing.

This last assumption looks like simply wrong: a market isn't just its supply side. There's a market whenever there's a demand of some goods (and the CPUs current demand is a rather though one), while a monopoly is just what a successful capitalist tends towards.

In the EU prices have gone up a bit on Intel processors, but it's hard to be certain why that is.Probably a combination of higher demand, and yes I would imagine Intel would respond to the FX situation to make more profits. That is pretty predictable.

What AMD do now will be interesting, whent he dust settles and it become more clear that FX isn't as good as it should be a hefty price cut seems very likely. AMD's biggest problem isn't Intel it's their own range of older processors! Which are actually far better bang per buck so I expect a surge in demand for CPU's like the 1090T and 4 core Athlon and Phenom II's. Prices are already fairly low on the dual and triple cores anyway. AMD are going to have to fight against their older "better" processors too

AMD also seem to be blaming global foundries for problems and the energy efficiency is not even remotely near to what was promised let alone the peformance. As it's very unlikely AMD can do anything significant with FX (either power wise or performance) until at least Q1 2012 their only way to respond is to price cut the FX models to a level where they are appealing v not only Intel but older AMD processors too! Some will buy FX without doing their homework and I'd expect sales to be brisk for a bit, then the reality sets in...and that is you're better off with a 1090T rather than an 8 core FX and you're better of with an Athlon II x4 than an FX 4 core. If you are making a new pc right now it is far more sensible to go with Intel (sadly)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum